What is a Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence?

There have been court rulings specifying when a motion "to preclude" is at issue. e.g.,

  • Introducing any Evidence or Argument Regarding Plaintiff Purportedly being Required to Provide Defendant a Right to Cure his Unapproved Subletting of a Portion of the Property
  • Introducing Evidence or Argument Regarding the Renovations, Condition, and Scope of Construction at the Building
  • Testifying at Trial Regarding Matters which they Refused to Testify about at Deposition based on Claims of Privilege and Privacy
  • Introducing Witnesses, Documents, or Contentions not Disclosed During Discovery
  • reference to tax implications
  • evidence that defendant not issued a citation
  • comments and innuendos that plaintiff's counsel referred her to her treating physicians
  • evidence of unrelated medical issues
  • evidence of plaintiff's prior loss of employment claim or change in employment
  • reference to collateral sources and health insurance
  • evidence in medical record of plaintiff's inquiry about having an attorney
  • evidence of plaintiff's smoking
  • use of textbooks and learned treatises on direct examinations
  • use of textbooks and learned treatises on direct examinations
  • expert testimony from non-designated expert witnesses
  • evidence of defective work and cost of repair, until or unless defendant has produced an invoice to support it
  • any reference to Civil Code section 3333.2 or code of civil procedure section 667.7
  • evidence of past medical expenses not actually paid by any source
  • mention of prior settlement monies received by plaintiff

Useful Rulings on Motion in Limine – Preclude Evidence

Recent Rulings on Motion in Limine – Preclude Evidence

PRICE VS THE CITY OF ANAHEIM

This rule would not preclude a court from enjoining unconstitutional or void acts, but to support a request for such relief the plaintiff must make a significant showing of irreparable injury.” (Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Assn., supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at 1471.) In this case, Plaintiffs have failed to make a showing—let alone a significant showing—that there is an imminent threat of irreparable harm if the requested preliminary injunction does not issue.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2030

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY VS. SANTA ANA RV STORAGE, L.P.

Given that CCP § 1263.510 mandates compensation for lost goodwill for the owner of a business conducted on the property taken, the Court will not preclude such recovery in the absence of express exclusionary language in the lease. That being said, it is not clear that SARVS necessarily will be eligible for such compensation.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Legal Standard “The court shall, on application of any defendant, preclude the admission of evidence of that defendant’s profits or financial condition until after the terrier of fact returns a verdict for plaintiff awarding actual damages and finds that a defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud in accordance with Section 3294.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

THOMAS J. SERGOTT VS MARRIOTT INTERNANTIONAL, INC.

Defendant Marriott International, Inc. may include the motion to bifurcate and stipulation with the motions in limine in the parties’ joint trial binder, pursuant to the First Amended Standing Order Re: Final Status Conference, Personal Injury Courts, effective as of April 16, 2018, to present to the judge to whom this matter is assigned for trial. Defendant Marriott International, Inc. is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

RIDGE CONLAN, ET AL. VS ROCKIN' RESCUE, ET AL.

Such rulings will await the appropriate Motions in Limine or other evidentiary objections and rulings.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JEFF REINKE VS ELMER ERNESTO LOPEZ PLIEGO ET AL

[citation] ‘The mere fact that plaintiffs are medical providers, and not employees, does not preclude the application of [the exclusive remedy] provisions.’ ” (Perrillo v. Picco & Presley (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 914, 929.) Accordingly, Security’s Motion on Lien Application is GRANTED in part. After Reinke’s costs and fees in the amount of $44,104.42, Security may obtain a lien on the remaining outstanding amount of the $50,000 settlement ($5,895.59).

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO VS CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPO

[citation] ‘The mere fact that plaintiffs are medical providers, and not employees, does not preclude the application of [the exclusive remedy] provisions.’ ” (Perrillo v. Picco & Presley (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 914, 929.) Accordingly, Security’s Motion on Lien Application is GRANTED in part. After Reinke’s costs and fees in the amount of $44,104.42, Security may obtain a lien on the remaining outstanding amount of the $50,000 settlement ($5,895.59).

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

JUAN MANUEL GUTIERREZ VS CRYSTAL GEYSER WATER COMPANY

(c) This section does not preclude taking one subsequent deposition of a natural person who has previously been examined under either or both of the following circumstances: (1) The person was examined as a result of that person’s designation to testify on behalf of an organization under Section 2025.230.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

FELIPE GARCIA INGUEZ ET AL VS TED GUERRA

In fact, it is long held that cross-complaints and affirmative defenses, legal or equitable, are only permissible in an unlawful detainer action insofar as they would, if successful, “preclude removal of the tenant from the premises.” (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 634.) Thus, merely because a subsequent case raises the same issues as an unlawful detainer case does not necessarily mean the issue was necessarily decided.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PAULINA VEGA VS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA

Overall, Class Counsel “determined an appropriate range of recovery for settlement purposes by offsetting Defendant’s maximum theoretical liability by: (i) the strength of the defenses to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims; (ii) the risk of class certification being denied; (iii) the risk of losing on any of a number of dispositive motions that could have been brought between certification and trial (e.g., motions to decertify the class, motions for summary judgment, and/or motions in limine) that might have eliminated

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

FERNANDO MORAN GONZALEZ VS JORGE OCTAVIO HERERRA ET AL

If Plaintiff sought to limit or preclude production of the documents, he was required to file a motion to quash. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1987.1, subd. (c), 1985.3, subd. (g).) Plaintiff neither filed a motion to quash nor opposed Defendants’ motion. Moreover, the subpoena is fair and appropriate under the circumstances. A plaintiff who seeks to recover for personal injuries waives the physician-patient privilege to some extent. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 863-864.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SARA GHAFARI VS ALI HOSSEIN ZADEH, D.D.S., ET AL.

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action must “present evidence that would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding it was more likely than not that their treatment fell below the standard of care.” (Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CESARE VIETINA VS ELVIRA BUFFONI, ET AL.

The more that he inquired, the more BNG sought to exclude him from corporate decision-making and preclude him from performing his job as a Madeo comanager. Defendants came to perceive Plaintiff as a whistleblower because BNG had formed MaDu (in part) to unlawfully provide greater health insurance benefits to the family than SPA provided to non-family employees. In November 2018, a special meeting of the MaDu Board of Directors was held.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

DANNIEL MADRID VS CANDACE HOWELL

Rather, the proofs of service indicate that motions in limine, opposition to motion for sanctions, and accompanying documents/proposed orders were served on Plaintiff. North Central District danNiel madrid, Plaintiff, v. candace howell, Defendant. Case No.: 19PDUD01269 Hearing Date: July 10, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: (1) plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s demurrer; and (2) Defendant’s demurrer BACKGROUND A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JIANG QI VS BLUESTAR EXPRESS GROUP INC.

Without control, considerations of due process preclude the addition of a party after the judgment is a fait accompli.” (Id. at 632 [citations omitted].) Discussion Plaintiff moves the court for an order amending the judgment entered on March 10, 2020 to add Qingyu and Gao as additional judgment debtors.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

LINDA MENDOZA RAZO VS JIMMY HANG, DPT

Hang has failed to cite any authority which would preclude Plaintiff from bringing claims based on two separate statutes. As such, the demurrer to the 4th cause of action is overruled. Plaintiff’s claims against Hang do not arise out of any alleged professional negligence. Plaintiff has not made a claim against Hang for professional negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA V. ASCARIE, ET AL.

As long as the decision whether to issue a permit is discretionary, the foregoing code sections “unalterably preclude[]” and immunize the decision to deny or revoke a permit. (See Rosenthal v Vogt (1991) 229 CalApp.3d 69, 75.) The only way, therefore, to state a claim based on the failure to issue permits would be for Dr. Ascarie to allege that the County had a mandatory duty to grant them to him and failed to do so.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

HUYNH, ET AL. V. MISSION DE LA CASA NURSING AND REHABILITATION CTR., ET AL.

However, it also states that “[t]his provision does not preclude the facility from obtaining the signature of an agent, responsible party, or a legal representative, if applicable.” (Id.) Plaintiffs contend that the eleventh cause of action adequately alleges a battery because “none of the medical care at Mission de la Casa was ever consented to by Peter Huynh.” (Opposition to demurrer, pp:12:24-27, 13:1-8.) In Saxena v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

SEYED SADEGHI VS GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Conversely, GEICO insists it will disclose policy limits to the selected arbitrator and not allow the issue to be resolved by motion in limine. (Ibid.) Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint against GEICO alleging a cause of action for declaratory relief. Defendant GEICO demurred to the Complaint which was overruled by the Court. GEICO thereafter filed its Answer alleging various affirmative defenses. II. Discovery Dispute (MTQ Deposition Subpoena and Protective Order).

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

SMOK'N BONES VS. VENTURI

Because the latter alternative is the correct one, he cannot use the statement in the Lease that he was the agent only for Smok as a binding admission sufficient to preclude this cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. The Lease does not preclude the allegation in the SACC that Wiener owed fiduciary duties to Venturi. As noted in Horiike v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

RICHARD SEGURA, ET AL. VS MATTHEW D. DUNN, M.D., ET AL.

A defendant moving for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action must “present evidence that would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding it was more likely than not that their treatment fell below the standard of care.” (Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 297, 305.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

LORENA GARCIA ET AL VS JAMES WOOD PROPERTIES LLC ET AL

The remedies provided by this chapter are cumulative, and shall not be construed as restricting any remedy, provisional or otherwise, provided by law for the benefit of any party to such action, and no judgment under this chapter shall preclude any party from obtaining additional relief based upon the same facts. (Code Civ. Proc, § 1062.) Thus, Cross-Complainants may be entitled to declaratory relief in addition to equitable indemnity[2].

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

L.A. NOOSHA, INC., A CORPORATION VS RAPHAEL AHARONOFF, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

This is sufficient to preclude a finding of probability of success. Defendants also provide evidence that Investusa does not owe Noosha the $24,000 because, as Noosha admits, that check was only intended to serve as security in the event that Investusa failed to pay. Aharonoff Decl. ¶7. Defendants’ evidence shows that Investusa had already provided Noosha three payments of $8,000 and an additional payment of $5,000 by the date Noosha deposited Check 2239. Aharonoff Decl. ¶7, Exs. 1-4.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DUBOC VS. IRVINE COMPANY, LLC

They involved motions in limine and expert witness testimony. In both cases expert testimony was properly excluded because there was no reasonable basis for the expert’s opinions that the plaintiffs had been exposed to mycotoxins. (Geffcken v. D'Andrea (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1311; Dee v. PCS Property Management, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-05.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

REGENCY LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC ET AL VS JEWISH EDUCATIONAL MOV

Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724 applies to preclude a lay person from representing an unincorporated association].) In light of these authorities, the Court will require that Regency Land Development LLC timely retain new counsel and file a substitution of counsel within 14 days of service of this order. The court hereby sets an OSC regarding status of Regency Land Development LLC’s representation for August 4, 2020 at 8:30 am in Department 26.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 277     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.